Thursday, 29 September 2016

Rochdale
at The Valley always seems a little poignant to me, but never more so than now.
I was still knee-high to a grasshopper (OK, a nascent, probably spotty with
daft hair, teenager, albeit not one being employed by a batty old owner of
football clubs to find players) on a very cold 6 Jan 1973 evening. We'd been
relegated to the third division for the first time in my life the previous
season and now I was one of 5,048 lonely souls in a vast stadium trying to keep
warm as we hosted Rochdale. Bloody hell, 43 years ago. No shortage of water
under the bridge since then but - and no disrespect to Rochdale intended - that
night always stayed in my head as a real low point, for the crowd and the mood.
A King Arthur goal gave us victory but we were to have two seasons of third
flight mediocrity before a combination of the emergence of Killer and the
installation as manager of Andy Nelson saw us promoted at the third time of
asking.

A
low point indeed, but now an impression of things having come around full
circle, as all Addicks struggle to come to terms with life back in this
division (yes I know, for the fourth time in my lifetime) and real concerns
about the future of our club. Back then expectations were lower and without
social media all we could do was grumble with mates over a pint (I was of
course too young for that and with no laptops I couldn't spend the time devising
ways to persuade daft old football club owners to make use of an adolescent's services).
It was a time of questioning whether Charlton could survive on such low
attendances, rumours even of a move to Milton Keynes. Fast forward to now and
it seems eerily similar.

A
longstanding fellow Addick now living outside London decided to take in Tuesday
night's game, giving some of us the opportunity to meet up. Five in the pub and
another two who couldn't make it. Go back some years and we were all season
ticket holders. Sure, one is no longer in London. But not one of the other six
now have season tickets, I'm into my second season of boycotting games, another
has stopped going this season, one more who has been attending on a
game-by-game basis decided at least this time around he'd prefer to stay in the
pub as, in his words, this dreadful regime is sucking all the enjoyment out of
going. He currently plans to switch to going to away games, like many others. So
three of the seven went to the game.

One sent me the
following comments today. "The only good thing about last night was
getting the chance to catch up with ..... Rarely (if ever) have I spent
so much time chatting at a match rather than watching the game. Probably only
about 6,000 in the ground despite the official attendance. No atmosphere at all
- like a pre-season friendly. Thoroughly outplayed by Oldham for about
75% of the match." The non-Londoner
replied with: "Yes an awful match in an atmosphere which wasn't hostile
but just resigned to failure. Only one bit of class and that was Lookman's
effort which hit the bar. But good to see you all. Let's do an away match and
not care about the football."

Now correct me if I'm
wrong, but one of the stated goals of the regime in its early days was to
improve the matchday experience. Does it sound as though they're succeeding? Of
course we have had the cheerleaders and the sofa, but perhaps they didn't quite
balance the utter ineptness of the regime and its contemptible arrogance, resulting
in lamentable and completely avoidable failure on the pitch. There are many
aspects to owning a football club and being a supporter that the regime just
'doesn't get'. But in this context one of the most striking, for me, is the
idea that they can happily kill off dreams and ambition, for many the very
rationale for being a supporter. We are offered by Meire the 'unique
experience' of being able to see stars of the future, for a short spell, now
Duchatelet muses about why football can't be more like rugby. Going to the game
then becomes an opportunity to meet up with friends (undeniably a major element)
and to stroll along to enjoy watching a bit of a kickabout as the youngsters
hone their skills, perhaps josh the ref a little if he makes a mistake, to
applaud if we win and collectively shrug our shoulders if we lose, then
everyone goes merrily back to the bar for another glass or two. A sort of local
social club. I don't need to outline why this is complete cobblers; every
supporter already knows why.

So we've had something
of a stand-off of late, a period of phoney war. The regime pretends that
attendances are not as dire as they are by giving away freebies and not caring
whether or not the tickets are used, pretends that it values supporters (it was
embarrassing to hear the stadium announcer at half-time in the Wimbledon game
declare 'great support in the first half ...' when everyone there knew it was
poor), and pretends that it is communicating with the fans, even that it wants
to improve communication (if they were serious they would know what to do).
CARD for good reasons had suspended protests inside the ground. And with more
protesters staying away and fewer inside for the home games, of course the
balance of regime opponents to at least tacit backers has shifted.

This period offered
the regime the opportunity to take the initiative and to win over more
supporters. It was always going to fail to take it. The unwanted brief visit by
Duchatelet was only notable for his disgraceful attempt to justify why he fails
to meet his responsibilities (it really sounded like another attempt to shift
the blame for failure without addressing why, if he cannot spare the time, he
keeps in place an incompetent embarrassment), the absurd comments made by Driesen
in his press interview only serve to show how well he fits with the regime (he
does lie/distort/mislead like the best of them) but not the real world. So CARD
has announced a resumption of protests, starting with the Coventry game. This
is bound to annoy some Addicks but the status quo is unsustainable, the regime
is slowly squeezing the life out of our club and is incapable of changing its
spots.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

I
had no plans to actually go to the game today, just intending to turn up for
the CARD photo, suitably attired. Turns out we missed the first shoot, which
had been brought forward, but made a repeat effort put on for us late arrivals,
then a ticket for the match found its way into my possession. Let me just stress
that no transfer of money to the regime was involved in the manufacturing of
this post.

The
game proved to be a criminal waste of three points. After 20 minutes I'd pretty
much come to terms with just how empty The Valley is these days, we were 1-0
up, looked perfectly capable of adding to that, Wimbledon didn't look as if
they carried a real threat, and my thoughts were just nothing silly at the back
and we should run out comfortable winners. At half-time we should have been two
or three goals to the good but no particular reason for concern, given the way
the game had gone. After 60 mins I remember thinking we'd gone off the boil
rather but were still comfortable, just hadn't put the game to bed; I also
wondered why Wimbledon seemed so content to be carrying on with one up front
and seemingly just going through the motions headed for defeat. After what
proved a pretty material substitution by them, two goals, and a lame response
from us, by the final whistle my mind was turning to just how we'd lost a game
that was there for the taking.

That
may seem a little unfair on Wimbledon. Perhaps they had a game-plan all along
(although the substitution that they made, which involved the introduction of a
second forward, one with considerable physical presence, came as a result of a
clash of heads at a corner and their guy going down poleaxed and getting
stretchered off). Truth is that with that change Wimbledon looked a different
team going forward, scored two decent goals, and ended the game in the
ascendency.

The
team was unchanged from the Fleetwood game, with Solly and Fox either side of
Pearce and Konsa in front of Rudd, Crofts and Ulvestad in central midfield and
Holmes and Lookman occupying the wide positions, and Magennis and Ajose up
front. And after Konsa was a little fortunate not to pick up a yellow card
after an early slip prompted a clear foul the first chance came the way of
Lookman. He was given far too much time, moved inside onto his right foot, but
put the shot wide of the far post. Really should have at least tested the keeper
and you felt at the time that surely it can't be that easy for him, surely
Wimbledon wouldn't give him that much space again. Wrong. Seems the clock was
only showing eight minutes gone when the ball was played square to Lookman and
he took it forward to the edge of the box. Again he cut inside, shaped to shoot
and their defender obligingly fell to the turf, allowing Lookman to take it
further to the right, then to direct his shot unerringly inside the near post.
It was a calm and effective finish, a goal all his own work, but the defending
was shocking.

It
looked like the first of many. Magennis was doing a good job of bullying their
two centre-backs and laying it off, Ajose was buzzing around with intent,
Holmes was threatening, and there was also Lookman. Crofts and Ulvestad didn't seem
to be getting forward to provide support, but quite frankly it didn't look as
though they would be required to do more than feed the others and protest the
back four. Wimbledon did produce an early scare or two but nothing clear-cut,
with Pearce in particular cutting out most balls forward, whereas the chances
for us were to come with regularity through the first half.

Holmes
had a decent shot beaten away, Ajose was played in, not really a one-on-one as
he was further out than that but he was clear and failed to test the keeper,
then the one that was laid on a plate for him. Down the right Ulvestad and
Solly worked to create space for a cross, eventually Ulvestad floated one up to
the far post, Magennis headed it down invitingly, but Ajose blazed it over the
bar. It was a bad miss as finishing chances like that are the reason he is out
there. Instead he'd been well placed twice and hadn't put in an effort on
target.

There
may have been other chances in the first half but no more come to mind. At the
break we were ahead but really should have been out of sight. There was no
strong feeling at the time that the failure to score more might come back to
haunt us as we seemed in control of the game, but you did feel that a team
looking to be around the top six needed to be more clinical in front of goal -
and that if we ended up failing to beat a team that looked as limited as
Wimbledon we will have problems.

The
second half carried on in a similar vein: us in control, Wimbledon sitting back
despite being behind, and just the need for a second goal to make it safe. It
didn't come. We probed, threatened, still had the weapons. One squared by
Magennis almost provided Ajose with a tap-in but didn't quite find him. When we
did get one on target, a good header from Magennis I think, their keeper dived low
to his right and pulled off a stunning save. That was a turning point. So was
the injury Wimbledon suffered from a corner. There seemed to be some confusion
as their guy had been on the ground for some minutes with a stretcher called
for, yet when the guy was carried off nobody was ready to replace him. The
pitch announcer said someone else was coming on, but eventually a big guy
pulled on a shirt and prepared to enter the game. He moved alongside their lone
forward and suddenly the game seemed different.

Slade
seemed to sense that Wimbledon were now a different kettle of fish and withdrew
Ajose, sending on Novak with around 20 mins left. But he didn't change the
shape, didn't look to the available Jackson to help close things down (and
perhaps pop up with a goal). Instead the next material event saw their
left-winger force or take advantage of a slip from Solly to cut in on goal,
only for Konsa to save the captain's blushes with an excellent block. Like our
goal, it was to prove a portent of things to come. Not long after the ball was
worked to that same guy. Lookman seemed to realise the problem and doubled up,
only this time the guy knocked it between the pair of them and was suddenly in,
rifling the ball past Rudd.

Still
more than 10 minutes to go, plus stoppage time, so their equaliser really
should have made it game on. But by then we'd lost momentum and the chances
were not coming along so frequently, while they knew that they were back in a
game they had no right to be. It was at this point I thought Slade should have
made a change, probably to bring on Jackson, as on the pitch we looked in need
of drive and leadership. Nothing happened and with five minutes left on the
clock we were to concede again.

To
be fair, this goal was a peach. Former Charlton youth player Fuller hadn't
looked the most comfortable right-back playing football this afternoon, up
against Lookman, but he moved forward down the line and onto a ball, to curl in
a superb cross. It was curling away from defenders, came in just behind their
sub, he twisted his neck and directed it like a bullet past Rudd, who again had
no chance.

With
five minutes of stoppage time we still had around 10 minutes left to get
something out of the game. We didn't. Wimbledon not surprisingly chased
everything down, we looked desperate (especially when Solly found himself in
space at the far post but was unable to square it to someone in a red shirt),
and although Magennis nodded one down for Novak to finish he was clearly in an
offside position. Instead their sub proved pretty adept at running down the
clock and the game ended with them in raptures and us ruing both missed
opportunities and an inability to respond to a change in circumstances.

As
this is the first game I've seen this season I can't compare with what has gone
before, only give my impressions. I hope the manager and the players are
annoyed with themselves and use that anger to positive effect next time around.
Today they came up short. It was a case of Shankley's 'the best team always
wins, the rest is just gossip'. They took advantage of our failures.

Player
Ratings:

Rudd: 7/10. What
rating do you give a keeper who made no saves and had no chance with their two
goals?

Solly: 6/10. No
lack of effort but got outmuscled by their guy twice and the second time it
cost us a goal.

Fox: 6/10. Nothing decisive at either end of the
pitch, no problems but no great contribution either.

Pearce: 7/10. I
was impressed with him, a classic 'no nonsense' performance. For most of the
game our defence was untroubled, for which he took much of the credit. But that
changed with their substitution.

Konsa: 6/10.
One excellent block, some good tackles. Clearly an excellent prospect,
just question whether he is ready to deal with the sort of sub they threw on.

Holmes: 7/10. Always a threat, even towards the end when he
carried the ball half the length of the pitch only to not get the curled shot
right. Another shot beaten away.

Crofts: 6/10.
Pretty anonymous for most of the game, but for most of the game we were
in control and all he needed to do was shore things up.

Ulvestad: 7/10.
He wasn't exactly box-to-box today, still finding his feet. But showed
glimpses of what we hope is to come in giving our midfield more guile and
energy.

Lookman: 7/10.
Should have been the match-winner but wasn't.

Magennis: 7/10.
Really overall did his job, was effective in leading the line and
keeping their defenders unsettled. Just didn't make a decisive contribution.

Ajose: 6/10.
Has to be judged on whether or not he takes the chances that come his
way. Today he didn't.

Subs: Novak (6/10 - made no real impression, went
offside when might have been played in).